No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Putting Financial Compensation for Research in a Different Risk Framework
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 August 2025
Abstract
In the ethics literature, concern about financial compensation has largely focused on the question of how payment could distort research participants’ perception of risk. Such concern about “undue inducement” has particularly occupied institutional review boards (IRBs) and has often led to conservative judgments about how much financial compensation participants can be offered in exchange for their participation in research. Increasingly, bioethics scholars have argued that such approaches to financial compensation in research could exploit participants, on one hand, or create a barrier to their enrollment, on the other. Despite the vast literature on financial compensation for research, there has been substantially less attention to the potential risk that such payment may pose to research participants. The current system of taxing research compensation is one important example of the financial risks to research participants that warrants more analysis and legislative action.
Information
- Type
- Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
References
Gelinas, L. et al., “A Framework for Ethical Payment to Research Participants,” New England Journal of Medicine 378, no. 8 (2018): 766–771; J. Millum and M. Garnett, “How Payment for Research Participation Can Be Coercive,” American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 9 (2019): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klitzman, R., “How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence.” Journal of Medical Ethics 39, no. 4 (2013): 224–229; E. A. Largent et al., “Money, Coercion, and Undue Inducement: Attitudes about Payments to Research Participants,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34, no. 1 (2012): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, C. and Abadie, R., “Exploiting a Research Underclass in Phase 1 Clinical Trials.” New England Journal of Medicine 358, no. 22 (2008): 2316–2317; J.A. Fisher, “Expanding the Frame of ‘Voluntariness’ in Informed Consent: Structural Coercion and the Power of Social and Economic Context.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23, no. 4 (2013): 355–379; T. Phillips, “Exploitation in payments to research subjects.” Bioethics 25, no. 4 (2011): 209–219; B.E. Bierer et al., “Fair Payment and Just Benefits to Enhance Diversity in Clinical Research,” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5, no. 1 (2021): e159, doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickert, N. and Grady, C., “What’s the Price of a Research Subject? Approaches to Payment for Research Participation,” New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 3 (1999): 198–203; A. VanderWalde and S. Kurzban, “Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What?,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39, no. 3 (2011): 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, L.Z. and Kesselheim, A.S., “Payments for Research Participation: Don’t Tax the Guinea Pig,” Clinical Trials 19, no. 5 (2022): 579–83, https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745221105896; M. Waltz, A.M. Davis, and J.A. Fisher, “‘Death and Taxes’: Why Financial Compensation for Research Participants Is an Economic and Legal Risk.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 51, no. 2 (2023): 413–25, https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albert-Rozenberg, D., et al. “Excluding Clinical Trial Compensation from Means-Tested Program Eligibility Determinations to Enhance Diversity in Clinical Trial Enrollment.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 53, no. 2 (2025): 200–209, https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.61.Google Scholar
See Albert-Rozenberg, et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A.L. et al., “Why Diverse Clinical Trial Participation Matters,” New England Journal of Medicine 388, no. 14 (2023): 1252–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahus, L., et al., “Patient Distrust in Pharmaceutical Companies: An Explanation for Women Under-Representation in Respiratory Clinical Trials?,” BMC Medical Ethics 21, no. 1 (2020): 1–8; D.T. Brandon, L.A. Isaac, and T.A. LaVeist, “The Legacy of Tuskegee and Trust in Medical Care: Is Tuskegee Responsible for Race Differences in Mistrust of Medical Care?,” Journal of the National Medical Association 97, no. 7 (2005): 951–56; Bierer, supra note 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, J.A., et al., “Phase I Trial Compensation: How Much Do Healthy Volunteers Actually Earn from Clinical Trial Enrollment?,” Clinical Trials 18, no. 4 (2021): 477–87.10.1177/17407745211011069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, J.A., Adverse Events: Race, Inequality, and the Testing of New Pharmaceuticals (New York University Press, 2020); J.A. Fisher, and C.A. Kalbaugh, “Challenging Assumptions About Minority Participation in U.S. Clinical Research,” American Journal of Public Health 101, no. 12 (2011): 2217–22; C.A. Kalbaugh, J.M. Kalbaugh, L. McManus, and J.A. Fisher. “Healthy Volunteers in US Phase I Clinical Trials: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Participation Over Time,” PloS One 16, no. 9 (2021): e0256994.Google Scholar
See Rand and Kesselheim, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Waltz, Davis and Fisher, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Waltz, Davis and Fisher, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Albert-Rozenberg, et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Waltz, Davis and Fisher, supra note 5. See also Monahan, T., Fisher, J.A., “Sacrificial Labour: Social Inequality, Identity Work, and the Damaging Pursuit of Elusive Futures,” Work, Employment and Society 34, no. 3 (2020): 441–56.; see also J.A. Fisher et al., supra note 10.Google ScholarPubMed
See Albert-Rozenberg, et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar